The McCain Thread

Who will be McCain's runningmate?

  • Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachussets)

  • Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

  • Rudy Giuliani (former mayor New York)

  • Charlie Christ (current governor of Florida)

  • Fred Thompson (former US Senator of Tennessee)

  • Condaleeza Rice (Secretary of State)

  • Colin Powell (former Secretary of State)

  • JC Watts (former Republican chairman of Republican House)

  • Rob Portman (Director of Office of Management and Budget)

  • Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)

  • Bobby Jindal (Governor of Lousiana)

  • Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina)

  • Lindsey Graham (US Senator of South Carolina)

  • Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska)

  • Kay Hutchinson (US Senator of Texas)

  • John Thune (US Senator of South Dakota)

  • Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi)

  • Marsha Blackburn (US Tenessee Representative)

  • Joseph Lieberman (US Senator of Connecticut)

  • Sonny Perdue (Governor of Georgia)

  • George Allen (former US Senator of Virginia)

  • Matt Blunt (Governor of Missouri)

  • some other US Senator, congressman

  • some other Governor

  • some dark horse like Dick Cheney


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Times was pretty clear about why they wouldn't publish McCain's piece and gave pretty clear expectations to his campaign over what type of piece they would publish (an actual reply that addresses the issues and his platform instead of just attacking Obama). This is not an unreasonable request and it smacks of....*gasp*...some actual journalistic integrity to try to force the candidates to focus on mapping out their platforms and plans rather than just instigating and allowing them to attack one another and nothing else.

jag
 
How very fair of the Times. Nice to see the journalistic integrity of our country's biggest newspaper. I'm tempted to cancel my subscription over this.

I think it was a bad move to publish Obama's, and not McCain's...



Are you kidding, this is a huge gift to the McCain campaign.....they are loving this......lmao. His rebuttal to Obama's is getting FAR MORE play time now, than it would have ever gotten just being in a newspaper. This was a gift.
 
The Times was pretty clear about why they wouldn't publish McCain's piece and gave pretty clear expectations to his campaign over what type of piece they would publish (an actual reply that addresses the issues and his platform instead of just attacking Obama). This is not an unreasonable request and it smacks of....*gasp*...some actual journalistic integrity to try to force the candidates to focus on mapping out their platforms and plans rather than just instigating and allowing them to attack one another and nothing else.

jag


Have you read Obama's piece? It was pretty much nothing more than attacking McCain and saying what he has said time and time again. That is why the NYT's excuse doesn't hold water.
 
The Times was pretty clear about why they wouldn't publish McCain's piece and gave pretty clear expectations to his campaign over what type of piece they would publish (an actual reply that addresses the issues and his platform instead of just attacking Obama). This is not an unreasonable request and it smacks of....*gasp*...some actual journalistic integrity to try to force the candidates to focus on mapping out their platforms and plans rather than just instigating and allowing them to attack one another and nothing else.

jag

No, they wanted McCain to write a piece that agreed with their take on policy, not his own. THAT is not journalistic integrity, that is bias at the bottom of the bile barrel.
 
Have you read Obama's piece? It was pretty much nothing more than attacking McCain and saying what he has said time and time again. That is why the NYT's excuse doesn't hold water.
Post it.
 
From The Editorial Reply said:
“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote. “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.”

McCain’s rejected op-ed had been a lengthy critique of Obama’s positions on Iraq policy, particularly his view of the surge.
“Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history,” wrote McCain, criticizing Obama’s call for an early withdrawal timeline. “I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner prematurely.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

jag
 

Google it. :oldrazz: :cwink:

jaguarr said:
Seems pretty clear to me.

jag

Of course McCain is going to defend the surge. That is his stance, and Obama attacked it. That is the point of a rebuttal. It is exactly as Kel said, it wasn't the stance the NYT liked so they didn't publish it. Obama's article did little more than attack the surge while offering a few vague ideas for redeployment. For the NYT to act as if Obama wrote some mind bending, revolutionary policy piece is frankly, a load of ****.
 
Google it. :oldrazz: :cwink:



Of course McCain is going to defend the surge. That is his stance, and Obama attacked it. That is the point of a rebuttal. It is exactly as Kel said, it wasn't the stance the NYT liked so they didn't publish it. Obama's article did little more than attack the surge while offering a few vague ideas for redeployment. For the NYT to act as if Obama wrote some mind bending, revolutionary policy piece is frankly, a load of ****.
You're the one coming in here saying that it was all about McCain. I just want you to post the proof of what you say so all of us can see what you are talking about.

If you don't want to do that, fine.
 
Its a New York Times article Supes. All you have to do is type in NYT Obama into basically any search engine and it will be the first choice. If you're really going to be that immature about it, I'll post it...but comeon Supes, you're better than that.
 
Its a New York Times article Supes. All you have to do is type in NYT Obama into basically any search engine and it will be the first choice. If you're really going to be that immature about it, I'll post it...but comeon Supes, you're better than that.
And you're better than making statments without backing it up but you did it so I guess we're both bad.

Call me crazy but I just want to read the thing before I say anything about it. Since you guys brought it up I would expect that you guys would post what you're talking about so all of us can read and decide for our self. Almost everyone is in here complaining about the thing but no one has posted one sentence from it.
 
Of course McCain is going to defend the surge. That is his stance, and Obama attacked it. That is the point of a rebuttal. It is exactly as Kel said, it wasn't the stance the NYT liked so they didn't publish it. Obama's article did little more than attack the surge while offering a few vague ideas for redeployment. For the NYT to act as if Obama wrote some mind bending, revolutionary policy piece is frankly, a load of ****.

Well, obviously you have read the unpublished McCain piece to be able to make that statement. So, kudos to you. :up:

jag
 
I didn't see Obama's piece as attacking anyone, and I saw McCain's as simply a rebuttal to some of the specifics (still fairly general) but some of the specifics of Obama's piece. I don't really see a problem with them publishing both. Pretty silly, but hey McCain's probably got read and heard by far more than it would have in the NYT.....lol
 
And you're better than making statments without backing it up but you did it so I guess we're both bad.

Call me crazy but I just want to read the thing before I say anything about it. Since you guys brought it up I would expect that you guys would post what you're talking about so all of us can read and decide for our self. Almost everyone is in here complaining about the thing but no one has posted one sentence from it.

I'll meet you half way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/o...3d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
 
I'll do you one better.

Alright, Lets see this thing Matt said is "nothing more than attacking McCain and saying what he has said time and time again."


My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?8qa

Yup, I can see how Matt would think it was nothing but an attack on McCain from the three times he mentions him. :up: :whatever:
 
Now, Anybody have a link or wish to post McCain's? I'd like to read it aswell to see what all the hoopla is about.
 
By Sen. John McCain

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
 
By Sen. John McCain

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Thank you. :up: :yay:
 
Okay, so McCain's piece really is pretty much all about Obama and much less about his own positions. I can honestly see why the Times kicked it back at him. But, Kel is right, that's just gotten him more press and more eyes on it than it would have been if the Times had just run it. I also see some worrisome things in McCain's piece, like the fixation on "winning" the war instead of just ending it.

jag
 
But it was a rebuttal, so of course it would be about Obama's. It wasn't written as a policy piece, it was written as a rebuttal. There is a difference.

It's not like the NYT's said, hey McCain how about you giving us a policy piece. It's an editorial piece, therefore a rebuttal is just as plausible. You have rebuttals to op-ed pieces ALL THE TIME.
 
But it was a rebuttal, so of course it would be about Obama's. It wasn't written as a policy piece, it was written as a rebuttal. There is a difference.


The difference I see is that while Obama mentions McCain three times in his piece, to demonstrate the difference between their positions (not attack him) while discussing the over-arching issue as a whole, McCain almost obsessively makes his piece completely about Obama.

jag
 
Now we can talk about this thing with a little bit more informed opinions.:yay:

In my opinion I think it's obvious that Obama's was more about his ideal's about Iraq and what he would like to do and McCain's was more about what was wrong with Obama and his ideals than saying what his own ideals are.

But that's just my opinion. Read it for yourself. :yay:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,368
Messages
22,092,914
Members
45,887
Latest member
Barryg
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"